Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Skippy wrote:just because hes not actually, psychically raping her at that very moment

I think that's exactly what he's doing.

Unless you meant physically....

Scott-S6 wrote:

Skippy wrote:just because hes not actually, psychically raping her at that very moment

I think that's exactly what he's doing.

Unless you meant physically....

Well spotted!

Thare1774 wrote:Often while browsing CMON I see nude female miniatures that people paint. It doesn't offend me at all, I just don't get it. For example I saw two today, the first was a female commissar wearing only a trench coat and pants and boots. Breasts exposed as well as her whole upper torso all the way down nearly to her crotch. Why in the world would a female commissar be naked? What is the value of that model? I would think people in this hobby would rather see a really well sculpted legitimate female commissar in full uniform appropriate for gameplay. The second example I saw was a diorama basically depicting the rape of an Eldar female captured by some guardsmen. One had her breastplate in his hands and she was topless on the ground while another guardsmen had his pants unbuttoned and others were watching in amusement. It was really well painted and put together, but what is the motivation to depict a rape scene when it could have just been the same scene minus the rape and nudity? I think in MOST cases it cheapens the time and effort put into creating it, What do you think?

at the end of the day, if, like me, your only into the modelling side of WH40K, and not the gaming side (all my miniatures and vehicles are for display, or for diorama's and not gaming, as i havn't the first clue how to play the game, nor any real interest in doing so) then the depiction of the horror of war makes that scene contextual, IF thats the sort of thing you wish to portray. E.G. if you were showing the sacking or a seized town/villiage/city etc by a barbaric army, its context is correct, however, on a field of battle, these scenes make no sense.

I personally, try to depict a battlefield/settlement as i have seen/experienced them, but, in the context of the game, those sort of depictions are not needed, as im sure they make no difference to the outcome of a game whatsoever.

I suppose the long and the short of it is this : the context and appropriateness is given by what the maker is trying to depict in the scene, and what else is going on around, in that scene.

tyrannosaurus wrote:

EDIT - Oh, and just remember, you're all here because your parents had sex, you came out butt naked from your mum's vagina and you sucked on her titties for at least a year so PLEASE get over your issues with nudity.

I was C-section born and bottle fed, I don't doubt that sex was needed in my creation....or at least that's what I'm told.......

My friend from time to time spots nude figures that are really...odd. Most of the time it's just some nude girl chained up or wearing some sort of slave outfit, but ever so often I'll stumble upon a girl with a tit guillotine about to be used on her, or some other naked female with a torture device.

TiB wrote:

A Town Called Maius wrote:For the diorama I won't comment on it's artistic value without having actually asked the artist to explain the piece first.

You shouldn't have to. A good piece of art should be able to communicate by itself.
It's silly that depending on what the artist says it's either an interesting piece of art or tasteless smut.

Indeed but it I often find that getting the person to explain their piece gives you an insight into their actual motivations and perspective, which you cannot achieve just by looking at the piece itself. It provides another angle to view it by, which may alter your own perception of the piece. You could find that the beautiful painting of the crucifixion of Christ was painted to celebrate the execution by an insane satanist (unlikely but a nicely ridiculous and exaggerated example).

Looking at the diorama all I see is a depiction of events which may be leading to rape using little models as the medium. There is no communication on whether the artist believes this scenario to be appalling or a natural occurrence in the fantasy setting. I could point out that the fact that none of the guardsman seem uncomfortable with what is going on or are making any attempt to stop it is possibly an indication that the artist does not consider this to be an appalling act. This would of course be wild speculation.

The guard holding the breastplate seems shocked at something but it cannot be identified whether it is the act of rape which is seemingly to come or the other guardsman aiming the gun at the Eldar. If it were the act of rape then it raises the question of why he is holding the Eldar's armour in the first place. Maybe the guardsman aiming the gun is appalled by the actions of his comrades and so will save the Eldar the torture of rape by shooting her, an act which the breastplate guardsman finds incomprehensible, leading to his shocked expression. These are all points which cannot be answered unconditionally by looking at the piece alone, we can all come up with different answers. The artists answer to this question would reveal a lot about the motivation to create this piece and that is why I would have liked to ask them about it.

Is the guardsman readhing for the button on the comm attempting to call superiors or is he turning it off?

It can make sense though, the aforementioned (by Necroshea) naked torture models wouldn't look too out of place in a highly converted Slannesh or Dark Elves/Eldar army, in fact nudity from slaves in such armies (or for that matter, troops with the Slannesh) isn't too weird and fits with the theme of the armies. For example you look at the slave girls on Asurbel Vect or whatever his name was' ship in the Dark Eldar range and it makes sense to have nearly naked girls on his ship.

And on occasion naked or nearly naked girls are sculpted really well and make good additions to whatever, for example I have Artemis from the Hasslefree Miniatures range as a Greek Statue in my scenery box, and as a model, it's a good one, there are a lot of naked statues in art so I think that's ok. But if you look at their model of 'Mary' from the same range you just ask yourself why

Another one is barbarians, if your doing a Celtic army, and have naked models it obviously makes sense, or if your ever doing slaves

But I agree most of the time it ends up being the company adding tits for the sake of adding tits

Polonius wrote:Traditionally, drawing/painting a nude model is considered essential to proper technique training. It's actually pretty challenging.

I know I've painted a few scantily clad figures, and even some nudes, and they've been challenges. You really learn how to work with flesh tones!

As with anythin else, quality and context go a long way. One of my favorite modesl (and a reason I've been starting deamons) is the Ultraforge Pleasuredemon:

My wife likes that mini. As a matter of fact she likes most of the succubus type minis...along with the other demon-ish types. Nudity doesnt bother her either.

Sorry for throwing a wrench in the "its only teens and people who arent getting any" theories.

I'm surprised no one has brought up the wet nurse model yet. Whether or not that is excessive nudity could be quite an interesting topic.

I think to be honest it's possible to draw a line between something 'tasteful' in terms of nudity, and something that isn't (like perhaps the Eldar/IG diorama). I don't think that many people actually have a problem with the nudity itself, but when it is done in a fashion, like in that diorama, there are all sorts of connotations attached to it that people will find distasteful and unacceptable. That someone might use such a device (as is commonplace in art) to raise awareness of issues - in this case rape or mistreatment of prisoners by the military - is another matter entirely.

There was another diorama (I think perhaps by the same chap), that has a bunch of IG down a hole, being flamed alive by some orks. I notice that no-one has brought that particular diorama up, but for me I find that to be far more repulsive (and certainly not something I would be happy with being on display in a shop window for instance) than something like the naked demon above, or one of the other less perverse nude minis.

Mewiththeface wrote:I'm surprised no one has brought up the wet nurse model yet. Whether or not that is excessive nudity could be quite an interesting topic.

The answer is yes. Most of those models are pretty tasteless and gross, but well sculpted. I love naked women as much as any red blooded male, but I don't need to have a monster that looks like a shaved testicle covered in tits, linked to other pregnant women who have umbilical cords coming out of theirs. I don't understand the appeal of that what so frakking ever, and the fact that it's sold out confounds me. What do you even do with it?


I love how the big argument in this thread seems to be from people thinking that folks who don't like nudity in their miniatures are a bunch of prudes. I think most of the time it's unnecessary and just an attempt to sell toys to nerds using sex appeal, same as anime girl statues or whatever. It's something that, on a gaming level, is all based around context. This came up in the "should I paint my IG like Nazis?" thread and my answer is the same here. It's all about context. If you've got an army of daemonettes, succubi, or whatever, then yeah, sure, go for it. They're evil naked daemons, whatever. If your Zulu or Pict army doesn't have loincloths and is just a bunch of guys waving their swords around while they wave their swords around (so to speak) then go for it, there's historical precedent. If you want to personally sculpt 200 torsos for your Imperial Guard replete with naked breasts, pregnant bellies, and skank stamps showing, then while I commend your effort there's no precedent for it. Why wouldn't your Guard be wearing shirts? Don't tell me they're from Amazonia XII or whatever, even the Imperial Guard knows to wear a flak jacket. However, if your Chaos priestess doesn't wear a shirt while she bathes in the blood of innocents or whatever Chaos folks do, whatever.

Basically it comes down to context and not being a creep about it. If you can justify it, really justify it, then do it. If it's just because you want to force your sexual tastes on others, then you might want to take a step back from the green stuff.

Brother SRM wrote:If you want to personally sculpt 200 torsos for your Imperial Guard replete with naked breasts, pregnant bellies, and skank stamps showing, then while I commend your effort there's no precedent for it. Why wouldn't your Guard be wearing shirts? Don't tell me they're from Amazonia XII or whatever, even the Imperial Guard knows to wear a flak jacket.

However they exist in 40k already and are called Catachans. In this case it would just be a female regiment. Actually it might be pretty interesting if you could find sufficiently large amount of female bodybuilder models somewhere.

Hena wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:If you want to personally sculpt 200 torsos for your Imperial Guard replete with naked breasts, pregnant bellies, and skank stamps showing, then while I commend your effort there's no precedent for it. Why wouldn't your Guard be wearing shirts? Don't tell me they're from Amazonia XII or whatever, even the Imperial Guard knows to wear a flak jacket.

However they exist in 40k already and are called Catachans. In this case it would just be a female regiment. Actually it might be pretty interesting if you could find sufficiently large amount of female bodybuilder models somewhere.

And I have never seen a female bodybuilder with boobs, so there will be nothing to offend people .

Hena wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:If you want to personally sculpt 200 torsos for your Imperial Guard replete with naked breasts, pregnant bellies, and skank stamps showing, then while I commend your effort there's no precedent for it. Why wouldn't your Guard be wearing shirts? Don't tell me they're from Amazonia XII or whatever, even the Imperial Guard knows to wear a flak jacket.

However they exist in 40k already and are called Catachans. In this case it would just be a female regiment. Actually it might be pretty interesting if you could find sufficiently large amount of female bodybuilder models somewhere.

Catachans exist specifically because of Vietnam movies. They had one female model who was wearing a tank top and had a grenade launcher, which is fine. Also, the model goes for stupid crazy money on eBay because people are that desperate to have a pair of non-man-boobs in their army.

Delephont wrote:

I was C-section born and bottle fed, I don't doubt that sex was needed in my creation....or at least that's what I'm told.......

me either, i was knitted with wire wool

Brother SRM wrote:

Mewiththeface wrote:I'm surprised no one has brought up the wet nurse model yet. Whether or not that is excessive nudity could be quite an interesting topic.

The answer is yes. Most of those models are pretty tasteless and gross, but well sculpted. I love naked women as much as any red blooded male, but I don't need to have a monster that looks like a shaved testicle covered in tits, linked to other pregnant women who have umbilical cords coming out of theirs. I don't understand the appeal of that what so frakking ever, and the fact that it's sold out confounds me. What do you even do with it?

Spoiler:

I'm assuming it involves hand lotion and loneliness

I love how the big argument in this thread seems to be from people thinking that folks who don't like nudity in their miniatures are a bunch of prudes.

I love how you made that comment right after making an insulting assumption about everyone that likes a model you don't.

If it's just because you want to force your sexual tastes on others, then you might want to take a step back from the green stuff.

I have been in this hobby a long time, and not once have I encountered anyone "forcing their sexual tastes" on me through their miniatures...

...except on this board where people have called for miniatures to be censored because they personally dislike them. The wet nurse, the anatomically correct Maelstrom monsters...

After reading too many posts on this matter I feel a need to participate.
A) I applaude the maker of the diorama, I think it was done with skill and was in no means overly graphic... it does not even depict rape, although there is the obvious hint of something sinister on its way

I think its superb... and no, it did not make me hard

B) There are a lot of people who claim they do not want boobies, rape and nudity to become a part of their "average game"... is there someone who feels this is actually happening? where does the fear of this happening coming from?

Yes, people do a lot of stupid stuff... nude wargaming models for the sake of boobies is something I categorize as dumb stuff. Models made for shock value is also something that I dont quite understand. But stuff like that dosent seem to be a big part of our hobby and I dont see it becoming one.

To each his own... to me, a hello kitty army is something I dislike much more than a superbly done diorama hinting of rape.

Brother SRM wrote:

Hena wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:If you want to personally sculpt 200 torsos for your Imperial Guard replete with naked breasts, pregnant bellies, and skank stamps showing, then while I commend your effort there's no precedent for it. Why wouldn't your Guard be wearing shirts? Don't tell me they're from Amazonia XII or whatever, even the Imperial Guard knows to wear a flak jacket.

However they exist in 40k already and are called Catachans. In this case it would just be a female regiment. Actually it might be pretty interesting if you could find sufficiently large amount of female bodybuilder models somewhere.

Catachans exist specifically because of Vietnam movies. They had one female model who was wearing a tank top and had a grenade launcher, which is fine. Also, the model goes for stupid crazy money on eBay because people are that desperate to have a pair of non-man-boobs in their army.

Quite so. However it doesn't still change the fact that they do not wear flak jackets, which is silly. Also several models are without shirts / jackets of any kind. So the argument that the commissar makes no sense because she doesn't wear armour is dubious as Catachans already are depicted in similar manner in the game.

Btw, I do also think the rape diorama is very nicely done. Though adding a bruises on the eldar would have made sense.

Hena wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:

Hena wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:If you want to personally sculpt 200 torsos for your Imperial Guard replete with naked breasts, pregnant bellies, and skank stamps showing, then while I commend your effort there's no precedent for it. Why wouldn't your Guard be wearing shirts? Don't tell me they're from Amazonia XII or whatever, even the Imperial Guard knows to wear a flak jacket.

However they exist in 40k already and are called Catachans. In this case it would just be a female regiment. Actually it might be pretty interesting if you could find sufficiently large amount of female bodybuilder models somewhere.

Catachans exist specifically because of Vietnam movies. They had one female model who was wearing a tank top and had a grenade launcher, which is fine. Also, the model goes for stupid crazy money on eBay because people are that desperate to have a pair of non-man-boobs in their army.

Quite so. However it doesn't still change the fact that they do not wear flak jackets, which is silly. Also several models are without shirts / jackets of any kind. So the argument that the commissar makes no sense because she doesn't wear armour is dubious as Catachans already are depicted in similar manner in the game.

It's not that she isn't wearing armour. I thought the original point was that she was wearing basically nothing but her trench coat? I always imagined that a female commissar would wear clothing almost identical to her male counterparts (i.e black coat, shirt, trousers, boots, red commissar sash). The commissariat does not change it's uniform depending on which regiment it is fighting with, the whole point is that the commissar is immediately recognisable and the black uniform goes a long way to making that work.

Maybe it's just me being old beyond my years, but I've seen a couple of basically nude female commisars and Inquisitors, and they just make me cringe. I see these models on the table, always done by someone around my age, who invariably takes the game far too seriously and can't take criticism if you just ask why they made these models. And always the people who seem to gather round these models, gazing with approving, loving and longing looks, are around 14-17, with pubescent beards and pornographic wallpapers on their phones. It just makes me despair, I find it needless and impractical, but hey, that's just me, I don't find them artistic or clever.
Though, saying all this, the old Daemonette models were fantastic, they captured Slaanesh's essence perfectly, in my opinion anyway. They weren't naked for the sake of "OMFG BOOBIEZ!" they were artfully done. But then again, maybe that's just because I hate all the newer daemons.

Have to say that in those past days that I used to paint, a nude, topless or clevege model, was a painting challenge. To get the skin paint job right was what made the model. Subtle shading to make the model look "real", not simply sticking a dark brwon inl line between the boobs. I did a Syntha model once and painted as the artwork showed her, so naked except for som cladding in the crotch. Was very impressed with the finished job in the end.

Just an obversation, but if the boobs on a female 28mm figure were small, would you really see that the model is female? Wouldn't a female Cadian model look no different to a male model? 52mm or 1:35 is a different matter and you will see that in models of that size. You will still get big boobs, but there are a lot more models with more natural looking proportions. Off the top of my head weren't the two Inquisitor death cult assassins' on the svelt side?

Wolfstan wrote:Just an obversation, but if the boobs on a female 28mm figure were small, would you really see that the model is female? Wouldn't a female Cadian model look no different to a male model? 52mm or 1:35 is a different matter and you will see that in models of that size. You will still get big boobs, but there are a lot more models with more natural looking proportions. Off the top of my head weren't the two Inquisitor death cult assassins' on the svelt side?

I would say that if you get a good face modelled and slightly lower the bulk of the overall frame of the model (just a bit, she's still a soldier after all) then it should be recognisable as a female even without breasts which when upscaled would make most porn stars cry.

Careful modelling should be able to overcome the restrictions of the scale. It's just easier to stick massive chest pillows on it and call it done.

That's the main thing isn't it. If you look at the figures made by Wyrd Miniatures, their female figures at 28mm are very impressive, same as the female pirate figures by Black Scorpion. As you say, it's simpler to stick some globes on the front and be done with it

But sure the imperium are xenophobic, so they would never try to have sex with aliens... thus the scene is incorrect and shoudl be destroyed by GW for not using the correct fluff.

If anything the guard should be poking her with sticks no pun intended.

Why is there so much hate towards nude models, if you look at an array of art there has always been a use of the nude body as a form of artwork. Yet people here seem to just dispose of nude minatures as just people will no lives or wife? Come on now, there are legit reasons for someone to want to paint nude models, actually most art colleges require their students to learn to draw and paint using real nude models, so why should there be anything against people wanting to paint nude models.

I can understand why it wouldn't be to someone's taste, and to be honest most of the nude model sculpts I have seen are not usually very good or interesting, but there has been some nude models I have seen that really have an artistic aesthetic value to me and I feel like that alone should allow for some people to at least respect the concept of it, even if it isn't something they particularly enjoy.


and yes nude female warriors make almost no logical sense in terms of combat haha


Automatically Appended Next Post:
again, I should mention I am not referring to models (that as ATCM mentioned above) have just clay pushed on them to give them breasts that are outrageous, but to people who take it as a serious way to create an interesting model.

Brother SRM wrote:
That's one thing. Savlar Chem Dogs are scummy, ruddy, dirty bastards, and their flag reflects that. It's also reminiscent of a pin-up painted on the side of a tank or plane, and that's fine. It makes sense from a fluff standpoint, and looks good. That particular one is also, as you said, extremely well done.

The fascination with painting models of naked women and the like just seems to be geeks being geeks. I don't really get the fascination; same with folks like Dr. Thunder and his infamous female Marine army. It's one of those things that oversteps a boundary and goes from a sane idea (I'll include a few women in my IG army!) and turns into something ridiculous (I'm going to make an all-female IG army, and they'll all be in bikinis and wearing ballgags!) and not many people stay anywhere near the line, unfortunately.

That's about the stupidest line of logic I've ever seen regarding nudity. Nothing personal but let's break it down.

Your first paragraph basically says only skilled painters should paint nudity; which is dumb because who are any of us to tell people not to better their abilities by trying or continuing to practice said ability.

And you go on to label Geeks as the only ones to take nudity seriously. This is again bullsh*t; I stopped painting models through most of High School and College; instead I started collecting porn and while in College wasting tuition funds on booze at parties where other students includin' lots of girls had the same idea ((guess what, college drunk girls LOVE sex! Who knew!? )) mild humor aside it has nothing to do with being a Geek to enjoy nudity. Walk into any old Garage shop, what you find? Posters of scantly clad women and pin-up girls everywhere. Naughty Calenders are a huge business, strip clubs make killings EVERY night over girls baring their chests for ALL to see (and boy let me tell you, its a lot of fun to look at em from pervert row).

The fascination is simple; its called instinct. You're instinct be you man or woman is to feth like rabbits, why? Because it feels great! And then there's the natural source code written into your DNA to reproduce. If you weren't you wouldn't have the organs for it.

Nudity is but one form of art that is everywhere; tell me what is the difference between that guy over there building an all bikini clad female army and a guy that paints large oil nudes? In my opinion there is nothing different as both have found an outlet for several urges including that which is to lust over the human form.


You know what I don't get? How people are offended by little miniature models based on a universe that has so many races that are completely built on fluff that involves mass murder, rape and pillaging? The Dark Eldar wouldn't think twice about skull f*cking your baby while you get rammed in the rear with a pineapple, and its going in leaf first! Chaos has Nurgle which is nothing but sex and pleasure. Even Tzeetch plays on that with lulling people in with false images of "pleasure" before turnin' them into bunny rabbits with the super aids, sorry I meant super rabies, screw it this is Tzeetch... BOTH the super aids AND super rabies.

And coming back to the pic of the Eldar woman warrior being advanced on by men. When has man ever proved itself to be completely above this? Not to mention that with simple application of fluff, traitor guard would do this fast!


My question would be, if painting a model of an eldar woman with her tits out makes that modeler a "rapist" in the head; does that mean me building mass armies so that I can roll dice to murder your army entirely make me Hitler? Or Stalin? Cause you know, you're army is CLEARLY not the chosen people and must die! So says the Dice Gods!

Sageheart wrote:and yes nude female warriors make almost no logical sense in terms of combat haha

Have you ever tried wearing armor? Let alone swinging a sword in it? F*ck that I'll take the ability to move and go with out the heavy plates.

I don't care much either way about nude models.. my issue is that most nude models are functionally useless as they have no purpose for any game

Collecting? Sure.. I guess if you wanna show people your creepy collection of nude pewter models you paint and keep on your shelf. It's sorta like the guy who keeps a bunch of naked statues in his house

No offense intended to people who do!

@Dracheous
I just said it was painted very well, I never said that only skilled painters should try it. Don't label me as an elitist. What about only geeks taking nudity seriously? Then you talk about buying porn and stripclubs? So you insult my logic then give a bunch of barely related, borderline non-sequitur anecdotes. Great.

The only point I'm seeing in your post is most of the way down is that you don't care about context, or know what it is. Artistic nudity is different. Pin ups are different. Painting a pin up on the side of your Valkyrie gunship, B-42, or whatever, is fine. It makes sense and can look really good.

My question would be, if painting a model of an eldar woman with her tits out makes that modeler a "rapist" in the head; does that mean me building mass armies so that I can roll dice to murder your army entirely make me Hitler? Or Stalin? Cause you know, you're army is CLEARLY not the chosen people and must die! So says the Dice Gods

Where are you even getting this from? Nobody's saying the dude who painted that diorama is a rapist because it implies rape is going to happen. There's no correlation between building a horde army and being fething Hitler, and you're just pulling things out of your ass. This isn't even a strawman argument, you're just pulling talking points out of thin air.

Brother SRM wrote:@Dracheous
I just said it was painted very well, I never said that only skilled painters should try it. Don't label me as an elitist. What about only geeks taking nudity seriously? Then you talk about buying porn and stripclubs? So you insult my logic then give a bunch of barely related, borderline non-sequitur anecdotes. Great.

The only point I'm seeing in your post is most of the way down is that you don't care about context, or know what it is. Artistic nudity is different. Pin ups are different. Painting a pin up on the side of your Valkyrie gunship, B-42, or whatever, is fine. It makes sense and can look really good.

My question would be, if painting a model of an eldar woman with her tits out makes that modeler a "rapist" in the head; does that mean me building mass armies so that I can roll dice to murder your army entirely make me Hitler? Or Stalin? Cause you know, you're army is CLEARLY not the chosen people and must die! So says the Dice Gods

Where are you even getting this from? Nobody's saying the dude who painted that diorama is a rapist because it implies rape is going to happen. There's no correlation between building a horde army and being fething Hitler, and you're just pulling things out of your ass. This isn't even a strawman argument, you're just pulling talking points out of thin air.

See now you're falling back on "not what I said", but it is. What you said is that only good painters should paint nudity because only "well done" art is "art".

You also said that only Geeks have a fascination with nudity; that's also completely untrue. As I tried to show you many other examples of people enjoying nudity.

And now you're just attacking me instead of the argument. As I said, it was not my intention to attack you, but only the statement of the one post and it was ridiculous. As is the claim that no where in this thread has anyone claimed the whole "rapist" thing. It's constantly being "implied" if that's the word you prefer, since the model "implied" rape. Who knows, maybe the guardsmen were just being nice and returning the plate to her while still keeping her alive long enough for the Inquisitor to show up ((which when he does EVERYONE including the woman in that model are dead)).